Another criminal case involving gun serial #

Post Reply
 
User avatar
davidmcbeth3
Member
Posts: 8505
Joined: Sun. Jun. 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Coal Size/Type: nut/pea/anthra

Post by davidmcbeth3 » Sun. Apr. 30, 2023 2:36 pm

US v Thompson 22-1011P-01A  gun serial no case 2023.pdf
.PDF | 163KB | US v Thompson 22-1011P-01A gun serial no case 2023.pdf
United States v. Thompson, No. 22-173, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73263 (E.D. La. Apr. 27, 2023) , opinion ^^ A 1st Circuit Fed. Appellate court case (will be on google scholar soon I imagine)

Here the guy argues that his sentence enhancement due to an obliterated serial # on his gun was wrong, being unconstitutional.

But he made a plea deal at trial. The 1st app. ct noted 2 decisions in respect to ser # of guns:

United Statesv. Price, No. 2:22-cr-97, 2022 WL 6968457, at *2-6(S.D. W.V. Oct. 12, 2022)

and

United Statesv. Holton, No. 3:21-CR-0482, 2022 WL 16701935, at *3-5 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2022)

That the court noted conflict with each other. And since he took a plea deal, his arguments did not meet the criteria for considering the appeal (usually pleading of guilty removes possibility of appeal with exceptions noted in the First Dist. opinion linked above).

It shows the risks taken when accepting a plea deal ... law may change in your favor during trial or during the appeal processes.

I'll attach the decisions on the Holton and Price case decisions below. The Price seems the correct analysis.
United States v. Price.pdf
.PDF | 231.7KB | United States v. Price.pdf





US v Holton - ser no - Texas.pdf
.PDF | 486.8KB | US v Holton - ser no - Texas.pdf


 
User avatar
davidmcbeth3
Member
Posts: 8505
Joined: Sun. Jun. 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Coal Size/Type: nut/pea/anthra

Post by davidmcbeth3 » Sun. Apr. 30, 2023 3:20 pm

I guess I'll add my reasons why the Holton decision is wrong.

Today one can make a firearm and sell it UN-serialized. A person (not a gun manufacturer) can make a gun for own personal use and then get tired of it or want to sell it for whatever reason..you did not intend on selling it when you made it..but now you want to sell it. You can. And unserialized.
That's the law today.

The Holton court thinks that serial #s create no burden but if you buy a gun how do you know the serial # is accurate or not ? Was a character added to the # ? Was a 7 changed to 8 ?

The Holton court decided that a regulation that does not change the FUNCTION of a gun is A-OK. But that is not the Heller/Bruen standard. So the court additionally says that because it does not affect the gun's functionality then the law is not a 2nd amendment issue at all. Yet that is not the standard.

And the court itself flip-flops on gun registration ... saying its OK and then saying its not..
"In contrast, sale restrictions, mandatory firearm registration, and taxes on personally held
firearms imposed greater burdens on firearm owners and sellers" Opinion pg 6

The court ignores that serialization is part of "registration" schemes, raises cost of firearms creating sales restrictions and increasing taxes for the sale of firearms.

The court ignores NFA and fed laws regarding registration (back in 30's $200 tax for machine guns was imposed .. worth about $5000 in today's money). A huge burden to a gun or prospective gun owner. The $200 tax made due to 1920-1930 movies with Cagney using tommy guns ... knee-jerk law as the first run of tommy guns by the manufacturer resulted in almost zero sales until WW II happened and the gov't bought them..they sat in warehouses for almost 20 yrs.

The basic holding in Holton was that the 2nd amendment was not implicated, the rest (wrongfully as well) was just dicta and not part of the holding that the court found.

Post Reply

Return to “The Coffee House”